zlacker

> widely documented disparities in how US law-enforcement agencies treat people of different races and ethnicities

Citation needed, particularly for Nature. As far as I can tell the supposed disparities are explained by the amount of violent crime the race and ethnicity commits (leading to more police interactions), but it's impolite to bring that up.

>>waffle+(OP)
"Widely documented" means that it's trivial for you to look up the data yourself.

>>waffle+(OP)
Would you also like a citation for the statement "racism exists"? There are some truths that are so plainly obvious and supported by mountains of data that it's absurd to demand a citation for them.

>>waffle+(OP)
It's impolite to bring that up because OF COURSE there are more violent crimes committed by a group that has been systematically discriminated against for hundreds of years. What did you expect? So, what should we take away from that? Well, we should expect everyone to receive the same treatment from government organizations (and many non-government organizations) that deliver services to people, without bias. Just because black people may commit more violent crimes as an adjusted ratio among black people compared to other ethnicities, is not a reason to treat a specific individual who happens to be black any differently from an individual who happens to not be black. The complaint of "black lives matter" is that there is a pattern of police abuse towards non-violent black people. So while you may be right in saying that there are more police interactions with black people than with other ethnicities, you are not right in saying that justifies the disparity in how peaceful individuals are profiled and abused. In fact, your reasoning perpetuates that injustice.

>>rickha+S
I obviously have, primarily the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), the Bureau of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and the Washington Post's police shootings database. If you compare the police-citizen homicide rate of the latter to the violent crime rate by race/ethnicity of the former, it's quite proportional.

If you're basing your opinion off of highly publicized gruesome videos, I can show you less publicized videos of other races being killed by police too.

>>bdamm+t2
> The complaint of "black lives matter" is that there is a pattern of police abuse towards non-violent black people.

Again I have yet to see any convincing data that supports this. There's a marketed list of names of victims, some with video footage, but I can also show you names and video footage of non-violent victims of other races being killed by police.

I certainly support police reform (within the bounds of common sense), and continuing to try to lift black folks up, who I agree have been systematically discriminated against for hundreds of years. But doing it under false pretenses has already opened up a Pandora's Box of racist moral panic when it's simply not there.

>>psycho+41
If someone made the claim that X people are the genetically less intelligent than Y people, I could point to a dozen times and places in history where that would be considered “plainly obvious,” amongst them America itself a mere century ago. The only reason it’s not today is because we have data to the contrary.

>>waffle+57
Hmm. Ok, there's a march on Washington being organized by Al Sharpton for families of people that have been killed while in police custody. Such a march is possible because there are so many. What do you think the ethnic makeup of that group will be?

What pretense are you saying is false, exactly? That there is a pattern of police abuse towards non-violent black people? It's patently silly. Black people have "the talk". White people don't have "the talk". We have videos of obvious injustice and racism popping up all the time, and the one-two punch of Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd being killed by people who are obviously, deeply, racist and nothing being done about it (indicating a severely dysfunctional police organization) catalyzed the "moral panic", but there's no such epidemic of videos showing white people being abused. Why? Because there is no such epidemic, and it is racist.

>>psycho+41
Part of maintaining these systems of white supremacy involves firstly disbelieving that such paradigms exist, and then secondly putting the labor of "proof" on the marginalized communities and their allies.

>>x86_64+oP
Part of maintaining the lie of "white supremacy" is never being very concrete, just ejecting dissenters with this weird homework assignment, or if pressed, handwave everything away with vague allusions to the unfalsifiable "systemic racism."

If the rare skeptic persists at this point you can now label them a "white supremacist," having conveniently shifted the goalposts on that term so that they are now an irredeemable racist, and proceed to burn their existence to the ground and salt the earth.